Kill the security bill

Kill the security bill

Now you see it, now you do not. The draconian bill on national
security, endorsed by the previous House of Representatives in
October, is making a comeback. Like a peekaboo game, the bill,
known by its Indonesian acronym PKB (Penanggulangan Keadaan
Bahaya, or Emergency Situation Containment), is back in the
forefront of the national political agenda, thanks to House
Speaker Akbar Tandjung. Except this Pee-Ka-Bee is no laughing
matter.

For reasons as yet unknown, Akbar is pressuring President
Abdurrahman Wahid to sign the bill into law. One thing we do know
is that the bill would give the military a virtual free rein over
the country, or a particular region, in times of emergency. And
we also know that the definition of emergency is so vague as to
be open to interpretation. Signing the bill into law would
restore a lot of the powers the President has stripped from the
military over these last five months. It would be political
suicide for Abdurrahman, and sound the death knell for democracy.

The bill was drafted by the Ministry of Defense, which at the
time was led by Gen. Wiranto, whom the President ousted from the
post of coordinating minister for political affairs and security
in February. Akbar's Golkar Party and the Indonesian Military
(TNI), which together controlled the last House, secured a swift
passage for the bill, ignoring overwhelming public opposition.

Not surprisingly, the bill was approved in October with minor
changes. The only significant change was to the title, and the
bill's articles were just as repressive as the 1963 subversion
law it sought to replace. The bill fooled no one but the as-yet
unreformed House. Outside the House, protesters clashed with
security forces deployed to safeguard legislators deliberating
the bill. At least four protesters were killed and dozens more
injured in these clashes.

The nation has barely recovered from that traumatic
experience, and now the House speaker is trying to convince
President Abdurrahman to sign the bill into law. His argument
that the military has no legal tools to operate in emergency
situations rings hollow. His warning that failing to sign the
bill into law would mean reactivating the old 1963 subversion law
sounds like a threat.

Rather than using empty rhetoric and threats, Akbar should
share with the rest of us the likely threats to national security
that make this security bill necessary, if any exist. Better
still, he should share with us his real motive for reintroducing
the bill to the national agenda. Even the TNI's current
leadership, who have the most interest in having this bill
enacted into law, has remained silent. If Akbar is not speaking
for the people or, as it seems, for the present military
leadership, then who is he speaking on behalf of? One can only
speculate.

We have no reason to fear that President Abdurrahman will
succumb to Akbar's demand. Abdurrahman, of all people, knows the
security bill runs counter to his own democratic principles.
After all, Abdurrahman has almost single-handedly cut the once
powerful military down to size in the short time he has been in
office. He is not likely to sign the bill when even his
unreformist predecessor, B.J. Habibie, could not bring himself to
sign it, notwithstanding pressure from Wiranto.

Now that Akbar has put the bill back on the national political
agenda, reformist factions in the House should seize the
opportunity to kill the legislation once and for all. Any future
bills dealing with emergency situations must be introduced
through the initiative of civilians. The people of this country
were trampled on by the military for more than 32 years, and do
not wish to repeat the experience. The ball is not in the
President's hands. It is actually back in the House's court.